Reading the Fine Print on GMO Labeling Initiatives

As anyone who's read my rantings on Monsanto (NYSE: MON  ) and genetically engineered foods knows, I'm not exactly a friend of lab-altered Frankenfoods or those who help create them. I've also championed the idea that consumers have a right to know whether the food they're eating has been unnaturally engineered, so labeling products as containing GMOs or not is generally a step in the right direction.

With Washington state set to vote on the I-522 ballot initiative to require GMO-containing foods sold in-state to be labeled as such, it may come as a surprise to find out I'm not necessarily supportive of these state efforts, if for no other reason than they're designed to be more a "full-employment act" for trial lawyers than a conveyor of information to consumers. In short, consumer-food-group companies like General Mills that spent a lot of money fighting labeling laws -- it contributed $1 million to defeat a similar California initiative -- may be ultimately right about the issue, though for the wrong reasons.

I think we need only look at how the courts are getting clogged with lawsuits by trial lawyers that challenge the use of words like "all natural" and "evaporated cane juice" to understand it's not so much the consumer they care about but the fees the lawsuits will generate. 

No one on either side of the debate suggests food companies ought to be able to secretly add the chemical melamine to infant formula as a means of boosting its protein profile, as occurred in China a few years back, and get away with it. But knowing whether a crop has been altered to resist the application of Monsanto's heavy-duty Roundup herbicide and still grow regardless seems a sensible addition to a product's label.

Even granting that such food is harmless for human consumption -- something I decidedly haven't bought into -- it ought to be up to the consumer to make that decision for herself and not have it surreptitiously passed along in her grocery cart.

And if the Washington state labeling proposal did only that, I'd probably be supportive. But it doesn't -- or rather, it muddies the water too much, creating such murkiness that it will invite class action lawsuits against food companies that will enrich the lawyers at the expense of companies, shareholders, and consumers.

Recently, WhiteWave Foods settled a class action lawsuit brought against it for using the term "evaporated cane juice" instead of the word "sugar." While seemingly an attempt by the organic milk producer to hide that its products contained the sweetener -- certainly something that could make consumers not want to buy it -- there's really nothing wrong or illegal in the use of ECJ on a label. The FDA may have issued guidance recommending producers not use the term ECJ, but it hasn't prohibited it, either. Still, a slew of companies are facing suits from lawyers calling the practice deceptive.

The I-522 proposal isn't much better. Some foods that are produced with genetically engineered ingredients or processing aids such as cheese, yogurt, and bakery products, all of which may use enzymes in production, would be exempt from the labeling requirements, as would all restaurants and alcoholic beverages. It's probably no coincidence that Washington is the second largest producer of premium wine in the country and that distilleries are a booming business there, too. The dairy, livestock, and poultry industries as well would also get a pass as long as the animals themselves weren't genetically engineered.

Along with burdensome record-keeping requirements and onerous fines that would fall disproportionately heavily on small farms and businesses, the totality of the proposal is a rather useless vehicle for its stated purpose.

As critics also claim, there is a labeling program of sorts consumers can already use if they're looking for GMO-free foods. Both the Non-GMO Project and Genetic ID offer consumers a verified label option, albeit it requires they seek out food manufacturers that themselves have sought the designation. Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ: WFM  ) , for instance, has been working with the Non-GMO Project since 2009 and has committed to having all of its products labeled by 2018.

But even Whole Foods isn't immune from getting sued because its "natural" private-label soda contained caramel flavoring, citric acid, and carbon dioxide. Companies as broadly diverse as Kellogg, Kraft Foods, and PepsiCo have also been hauled into court for similarly trivial infractions.

With holes as wide as genetically modified Swiss cheese to scare-mongering tactics -- the GMO label would be front-of-package, not on the back like all other nutritional information is commonly presented, a move no doubt designed to scare away consumers -- it's clear there's an agenda with I-522 that goes beyond simple labeling as a consumer information service.

For that reason and more, I think these state initiatives leave a lot to be desired and probably ought not to be passed. I certainly support the voluntary labeling efforts of Whole Foods Market and others, and work diligently to eliminate GMO products from my own grocery cart, but as a means of transferring wealth from companies and their shareholders to the legal community, I find it difficult to read any positive outcome into these labeling efforts.

Read between the lines
If you ask successful investors about the edge that's helped them crush the market, the answer you receive might surprise you. It might even sound too simple to be true. After all, how could something that takes minutes to learn reward its followers for a lifetime? The details are clearly spelled out for you in The Motley Fool's special free report "3 Stocks to Own Forever." But don't let this title fool you. The most important information inside isn't a stock pick. Click here now for free access


Read/Post Comments (3) | Recommend This Article (1)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On October 23, 2013, at 1:21 PM, getthefacts4a wrote:

    I was glad to see that you see the irrational way this labeling is being attempted but I notice your own words saying "has been unnaturally engineered" there is no food that hasn't been changed by humans already> what you probably think as natural is in fact, not. We have bred food plants randomly over the years to make them taste better and to be less toxic to us - not completely non-toxic. Natural ingredients can be toxic - try eating a raw potato or too and finding out that naturally it has anti-feedants that destroy our digestive system (unless cooked). We need to educate people about what is already in our food and then they can appreaciate the most ttested food on the planet -GM food is not more unhealthy and might even be better for us e.g. aflatoxins lower in Bt corn than organic corn.

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2013, at 11:30 AM, SPR507 wrote:

    It would be nice to read sponsored material from Motley Fool that faced the same rigor for truth that their financial finding give us. To blatantly call GM food "frankenfood" serves not purporse other than to incite negativity against GM food. As the previous post mentions - GM food can actually be better for you than organic.

    While I have the platform, if you are so against GM food, then why do you accept GM medicine, wine or cheese without question?

    Food for thought (pardon the pun)...

  • Report this Comment On October 24, 2013, at 1:51 PM, donjoanie wrote:

    Rick: Thank you for admitting to your anti-Monsanto rants in the past. I do appreciate that this article is much more balanced than your previous offerings.

    In your article, you write: "knowing whether a crop has been altered to resist the application of Monsanto's heavy-duty Roundup herbicide and still grow regardless seems a sensible addition to a product's label. Even granting that such food is harmless for human consumption . . . it ought to be up to the consumer to make that decision for herself and not have it surreptitiously passed along in her grocery cart."

    Taking your logic and applying it to the organic food industry, isn't the best way to get the information out to the public that organic produce contains significant increases in mycotoxins (proven precursors to cancer) as compared to conventional and GMO produce is to label organic produce with that important information? Any organic food producer, market or association who disagrees with this while claiming that GMOs should be labeled is being hypocritical at the expense of the health (and lives) of its customers. The same goes for authors of articles who take that same position.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2694305, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/23/2014 2:19:30 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement